Despite the controversies over the notion of equivalence, most theorists have reached a consensus that an ideal translation is the unity of equivalence in both the form and the meaning, and that translation has to be discussed under cultural conditions. However, because of the linguistic and cultural differences between languages and cultures, there are actually different levels of equivalence in translation, namely, full equivalence, partial equivalence and nil equivalence. When translating source texts that are linguistically and culturally specific and that have only partial or nil correspondence in the target text, the translator will find it difficult to achieve perfect equivalence both in form and in meaning.The exchange and communication between languages are in essence the exchanges between cultures. As far as its basic definition is concerned, the major task of translation is to turn the cultural content in one language into another, so whether it is faithful or not largely depends on the degrees of the translator’s grasp of the two languages and the subtle difference of the cultural content expressed in the languages. Thus translation cannot but encounter the problem of culture and its representations.To deal with this dilemma, theorists have come up with two kinds of approaches that have aroused heated debates. This thesis tries to analyze the two strategies of domestication and alienation in translation and to clarify their relations and significance in translation across cultures.In Chapter One, the various formulations of equivalence as interpreted by western and Chinese translation theorists are analyzed, evaluated and discussed from different points of view and are approached from many different perspectives. These provoking theoretical researches into the nature and process of translation have served as fundamental guidelines in the translation practice, resulting in different translational strategies.Chapter Two is focused on the relations between the two translational strategies: domestication and alienation. Translation, as a transfer of the meaning between languages, is not only a bilingual practice, but more significantly, a bi-cultural communication. The similarity between all human communities is the fundamental basis without which translation can never take place. However, when translating between two distinct languages with fundamentally different cultures (like Chinese and English), the translator is confronted with a formidable task of overcoming the linguistic and cultural gaps between the source and the target languages. Effective intercultural translators try to understand the diversity of languages and cultures and to develop skills and strategies in order to achieve effective outcomes whenencountering contrasting cultures. The translator can choose either to domesticate the foreign text to the target language cultural system, or to alienate the text in order to show the linguistic and cultural differences. After an analysis of the domestication and alienation approaches respectively, it is reasonable to conclude that both approaches are necessary in translation. Therefore, the translator has to find a balance between alienation and domestication. While bearing in mind the necessity to alienate for the purpose of cultural communication, he should also guard against translationese, which is the result of over-alienation.Chapter Three goes on to identify the existence of alienated texts as the result of alienation translation. The existence of alienated texts as a direct result of alienation translation is a feature of contemporary intercultural communication. They result from cultures and languages being in contact. A typical alienated text may be the result of the deliberate borrowing of foreign linguistic or cultural features, which, if accepted, will bring new impetus for the development of the native language and culture. However, alienated texts might also become translationese, which is created unconsciously when the translator adopts excessive foreign fa